It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Both games suck balls but New Vegas a little bit less.
New Vegas is just way more Fallouty than Fallout 3 when it comes to setting and atmosphere, so it wins hands down. That said, I'd still just rather play Fallout 2 again.
I prefer Fallout New Vegas the story and setting where good and i did hate wandering through the DC maze in Fallout 3. Also FNV had Muggy who cant love a robot with a cup addiction and a potty mouth.
Played 3 for a tad more than 100 hours - thought it was a boring mess, but somehow I had to get my money's worth (being a dummy, bought it when it came out). New Vegas on the other hand I consider one of the best games in the past 10 years and arguably the best rpg to come out in a very long time (even with all the flaws the game has due the retarded engine it's built on).
avatar
rrr8891: New Vegas is just way more Fallouty than Fallout 3 when it comes to setting and atmosphere, so it wins hands down. That said, I'd still just rather play Fallout 2 again.
That's the spirit! I've finished Fallout 1 and 2 like 4 times, but with F3 and NV I always get so bored after first 10 hours I uninstall it into nomen-omen - Oblivion.

I can't get into any Oblivion-like game...
low rated
avatar
rrr8891: Go fuck yourself.
*takes a bow*
avatar
Daynov: Played 3 for a tad more than 100 hours - thought it was a boring mess, but somehow I had to get my money's worth (being a dummy, bought it when it came out). New Vegas on the other hand I consider one of the best games in the past 10 years and arguably the best rpg to come out in a very long time (even with all the flaws the game has due the retarded engine it's built on).
If you thought it was a boring mess, I'd argue that "getting your money's worth" is not the appropriate term for spending 100 hours with it...
Out of curiosity: Did you mod the game?

avatar
Potzato: Playing F1 & F2 is not mandatory but it radically changes your perception (and experience) of F3 & NV. For bad or for worse ....

Also, I think if you had to play 2 games out of the four, the 2 first would be a better choice. That's my opinion, but I dare think many people here would agree.

I hated F3 btw :)
I played all three. I liked all three. F3 played very differently from the first two, but I did not care. I modded it quite a bit (as I do with most Bethesda games) which might have changed my perception of the game.
I have yet to play NV; as for the first three Fallouts, I'd say try out all of them. If the style of F1&2 or F3 does not suit you, you will probably notice soon enough.
Post edited September 19, 2013 by etna87
avatar
etna87: Did you mod the game?
Had around 30 mods. They helped a bit but ultimately couldn't fix a game that had so many problems. As far as I know no mods could fix the terrible world and level design, writing, plot and characters. Played it for 100 hours simply so I could do anything and go everywhere, fortunately a single playthrough was sufficient since the game mostly lacks c&c.
avatar
DieRuhe: I've only played 3. Wasn't thrilled with it. To me, the presentation just seemed so dull. Every conversation felt like I was listening to a lecture.
They put substantially more effort into FO:NV than FO3. It's the little things like the raiders versus the fiends. The raiders in FO3 were kind of cartoonish, they somehow managed to survive despite a complete lack of any interest in survival skills. The fiends at least were a bit more fleshed out and exhibited some signs of motivation other than being villains.

Also, Dead Money is definitely the best DLC that I've ever seen. Playing it in HC was a PITA, but finishing it out was an accomplishment to be relished.
avatar
DieRuhe: I've only played 3. Wasn't thrilled with it. To me, the presentation just seemed so dull. Every conversation felt like I was listening to a lecture.
avatar
hedwards: They put substantially more effort into FO:NV than FO3. It's the little things like the raiders versus the fiends. The raiders in FO3 were kind of cartoonish, they somehow managed to survive despite a complete lack of any interest in survival skills. The fiends at least were a bit more fleshed out and exhibited some signs of motivation other than being villains.

Also, Dead Money is definitely the best DLC that I've ever seen. Playing it in HC was a PITA, but finishing it out was an accomplishment to be relished.
Maybe someday I'll go back to it and give it another try, but right now way too many other games to play that I really love! :-)
avatar
hedwards: They put substantially more effort into FO:NV than FO3. It's the little things like the raiders versus the fiends. The raiders in FO3 were kind of cartoonish, they somehow managed to survive despite a complete lack of any interest in survival skills. The fiends at least were a bit more fleshed out and exhibited some signs of motivation other than being villains.

Also, Dead Money is definitely the best DLC that I've ever seen. Playing it in HC was a PITA, but finishing it out was an accomplishment to be relished.
avatar
DieRuhe: Maybe someday I'll go back to it and give it another try, but right now way too many other games to play that I really love! :-)
You and me both. The main reason I played it was that I was working all my hours 3 days a week, which gave me 4 days off. So, I could play a crap load. Otherwise, a game like that, I'd wind up being lost a lot and forgetting what I was doing.

Now, I've got a huge backlog and I have a few games still on preorder.
Fallout 3 all the way.
Already made my opinion clear on page one, but I have to say I replayed some of Fallout 3 recently and man is that writing and quest design horrible. Much worse than I remembered. New Vegas is miles ahead by comparison, as is Skyrim for that matter.
Are these games connected story-wise ?